Did someone say cheesesteak? Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it. Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this. Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich. 2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available. Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Also Gamemako, your comment on selling uranium in grocery stores is ridiculous.

The point is that you believe things should be available regardless of potential harm (your friendly neighborhood nuke store!), or you draw a line involving public good. I'm not arguing whether or not the sale of raw milk should be legal or whether it should be permitted to cross state lines. Whether you agree with the current placement of the line is moot; he clearly and deliberately crossed it. In fact, if these customers were so nearby, they could have collected the raw milk themselves in the state and the entire business would have been perfectly legal.

manofmystery wrote:

It is an asinine assumption that the only thing preventing this from happening is government regulation. I saw Anthony Bourdain eat some cheese made with raw milk, on tv, a few weeks back. Better get him. He might have made a conscience decision to intake something that could, potentially maybe, harm his health a bit!

Consumption of raw milk is not illegal. You're arguing against a law that doesn't exist.

//EDIT:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Further, the crime was not selling it, but
selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on
a map?

All law is arbitrary. Only pure anarchy has no borders.

//EDIT: Or pure, universal statism. All is the dominion of the One World Order!

Did someone say cheesesteak? Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it. Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this. Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich. 2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available. Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical. I believe that it is. There's not much more to it than that.

^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now.

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize.

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize.

"I wrote the piece in the form of a letter
to my pro-Obama friends and said that by the end of his term, Obama’s
administration would not look very different from that of George
W. Bush. I told them that if I was wrong about my predictions, I
would re-think all of my beliefs about our political system and
about politics generally, and if I turned out to be right, I asked
them to do the same."

....god damn

"many of them are disappointed in what Obama has done so
far, and that many are feeling hopeless about the upcoming election,
resigned to their belief that there is "no better alternative."
Incredibly, some of them plan to vote for Obama again."

Well, this is also accurate, except instead of Obama again I am turning to Ron Paul (realizing he does fit my views surprisingly and some of his opinions make more sense than I thought).

Let's see what his alternative is to those Obama let downers...

"Ron Paul"

Ugh, he's got me on this one to the tee. I no longer feel like a unique and special flower

^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now.

You're saying a couple of things-- firstly, the existence of a larger more standardized cruelty does not mean preventing a small cruelty is backwards. Further, California passing such a law may contribute to a larger conversation about how animals-for-consumption are treated. Or maybe not, but one does what they can in their little corner of the world. Second you raise the issue of whether we need to be eating such large amounts of meat in the first place. As a meat-eater I am of course biased on this to a degree, but I would point to a continuing need for affordable protein sources for a struggling population. I'm not going to tell someone able to get a pound of ground beef for a third the price of other cuts, who can feed themselves or family because their market offered chicken parts at three bucks a pound - however questionable and non-range fed - that they can't or shouldn't do that. Maybe someday we'll have a more agrarian, humane and 'sustainable' system but until then people need affordable meat protein (not just beans or cheese or even protein supplements though those are all very good too).

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and
since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty
against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to
proselytize.

Hmm, the article reads a bit like someone needing some attention about how right they were (as in "See?! Everything isn't all better. Obama has made mistakes, and he is willing to take military action. I was right, people!"). And nearly half the things on the list are precluded by "Well, this hasn't happened yet, but.." or "Okay I admit this is speculation, but.."

It's pretty weak, and we've heard it. The reason Obama will likely be
reelected is mostly because if economic news continues to swing upward,
there's no real reason roughly the same percentage of voter will not
prefer him to the other candidate(s).

]Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical. I believe that it is. There's not much more to it than that.

I don't think things like demand for a meat should affect the morality of an action nor the legality. Unless, I'm misunderstanding, neither of us really wants to get into a prolonged discussion about animal rights. I'll just sum my position by saying that I don't give them any.

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - March 05 2012 at 07:46

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I don't like it. Something smells bad about the bill. Working off the clock does not necessarily entitle you to monetary payment. This seems like a bill the city would use to prosecute companies on the behalf of workers which would only leave to adverse results.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and
since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty
against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to
proselytize.

Hmm, the article reads a bit like someone needing some attention about how right they were (as in "See?! Everything isn't all better. Obama has made mistakes, and he is willing to take military action. I was right, people!"). And nearly half the things on the list are precluded by "Well, this hasn't happened yet, but.." or "Okay I admit this is speculation, but.."

It's pretty weak, and we've heard it. The reason Obama will likely be
reelected is mostly because if economic news continues to swing upward,
there's no real reason roughly the same percentage of voter will not
prefer him to the other candidate(s).

I think the reason Obama will be reelected is because almost all the GOP candidates are a joke. There's no economic upward swing.

From a non analyst, economical expert "street view" things seem to be slowly getting better. Not gunna throw numbers and sh*t, I'm talking about what I observe.

My mother and I have been applying for jobs and generally seem to be getting more interviews, the financial situation for us is slightly better, others we know have been having success in getting jobs, saving up. People around just say "ya know things have been a better for us" etc. Basically little things.

Emphasis of course on slowly improving, and little things...But yeah this is no surprise, in 09 I said Obama was in the cat bird seat. That the economy will improve, he will be credited for "fixing" it, and the increase in craziness from the GOP would help even more so. In fact I thought it was a 110% guarantee. The economy has sludged way more than I thought, and the explosion in anti government sentiment surprised me (even if most Americans are jumping on a bandwagon and repeating whatever (insert personality) says mindlessly.

But yeah Obama will win against any of these jokes, and even if Paul gets the nomination there's plenty of fire to be used against him. I see the Dems really using the "racist" thing against him and his "soft views" on terrorism. Quotes for emphasis on the BS of it so please don't go crazy about how those are lies

Also his general views would be distorted as is the case with anyone. I'm sure some scary black and white commercial will be aired of ron Paul holding a molotov cocktail, looking over his shoulder, and lobs it on a school. The deep voice comes in then, "Do you want this to happen to our country in these sensitive times? Vote Obama November 6"

One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

God damn, that's a shame. Always liked him. Back in my full out liberal days he was like mah man in Congress, even now he represents what I still like deep down (but have no hope of)

And yeah, like or not he stuck to his ideals, one of the few true members of Congress along with Paul. Dedicated to anti war as you said.

First Russ Feingold (only real political hero I had) now him there were few people I truly like in politics, and all are being removed! I doubt his anti war, alone, had much to do with it. Says his district got re drawn, and I'm guessing he was too progressive for the new district.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum